Arozin - Research and theory, reflection

Before this week, I thought I knew the definition of theory, or at least had a pretty good perception of it, but after this weeks lecture and seminar I realized that my definition of theory rather was the definition of a hypothesis.

During the seminar everyone in my group had almost the same definition of theory , with some slight changes and alterations. we draw the conclusion that a hypothesis is a link or a bridge that connects the theory and the empirical data.

In the beginning a theory is nothing but an observation of the behaviour of causal relationships, or an outcome based on nothing else but a hunch or a feeling. The hypothesis then tries to explain what is expected of the outcome and the accuracy of the theory by observing the theory, and the hypothesis gets proven or unproven by empirical data collected through a research, which proves or disproves the theory.

We later through the seminar discussed what theories are based upon, and we came to the conclusion that basicly, research is result of the chain of theory-hypothesis-data, but we later discussed if research can be the base to a theory. The overall consent was that theory can not be based on research but I beg to differ, because I think that research in one specific scientific area can be a vivid base of a scientific theory in another area. The research itself may not prove the validity of the created theory, but can be used to raise a question around it.

For example there has been a theory that claims that black holes does not exist, since the amount of radiation shed from a collapsing star surpasses the amount needed for creating a black hole, and the theorist bases this theory on the research of hawking radiation around the phenomena of the event horizon that surrounds a black hole. I would see this as a theory based on research in a similar field that has a connection to the area of the theory, but not the theory itself.

(http://www.iflscience.com/physics/physicist-claims-have-proven-mathematically-black-holes-do-not-exist)

We also discussed our different papers that we chose, whereas my paper had a theory that today's media companies and producers do not hold the same contextual power as they did decades ago due to the evolution of the internet, which gave individuals a greater freedom of speech.

The theory proved to be accurate after observing empirical data collected over the years, plus qualitative interviews of top shots in the media industry, but during the seminar we argued that maybe the internet is not as effective as we thought? We though this since a discussion on the internet lack some key values compared to a  discussion you have in person, such as feelings, impressions, and the behaviour of the participants. all this gets neglected in a discussion on the internet, which often leads to misinterpretations and unnecessary misunderstandings.

We thought of it as a wall, which everyone throw their opinions on, left it there and rarely reflected on others opinions on the wall.

This was a very hard drawn conclusion, and there is absolutely effective discussion on the internet, but we have to bear in mind what the digital world neglects us. Personally I think that internet is a modern way of expressing yourself, and it gives you an alternative, which makes it good democratic tool, but maybe it isn't as good as everyone think it is.

Arozin - Quantitative research

Regarding: the chosen paper, what methods they used, their limitations and benefits, what I learnt from reading the paper and the main methodological problems of the study.

I chose the paper Measuring Mobile Phone use: Self-Report Versus log Data by Jeffrey Boase and Rich Ling (2013) from the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication which has an impact factor of 1.778.

In this paper they use two different Quantitative methods, Self-Report and Log Data.

The main purpose of the Self-Report method is to let the research participants to log their mobile phone usage by themselves. In this particular research they measured two factors, frequency and duration. When it comes to frequency it specifies the number of text messages and phone calls that the respondent sent and received each day. When it comes to duration they asked the respondents to estimate the amount of time that they spend each day on using their device.  They crosschecked the results from the self reported data with log data acquired from four different phone operators, and estimated that the correlation between the self reported data and the billing data were moderately strong, they could therefore conclude that their self reported data were pretty accurate.

It must be considered that this study is mainly conducted on subjects residing in Norway, and it is possible that the behaviour of one specific demographic group cannot represent the behaviour of demographic groups in other countries.

Another problem is that the respondents may not be the only users of the phone, family and friends can also been using it, and their usage wont show in the subjects self report, but will be reflected in the log data collected which skews the results.

Another problem can be when it comes to self reporting of time, that the valuation may differ immensely, and won't be considered if u dont apply a statistical method that negates these effects.

In the paper there were three specific reasons to question the accuracy of the method: cognitive burden, social desirability and conceptual validity, which means that a respondent can subconsciously alter their behaviour when they try to recall it. That is if someone think they are a heavy or light mobile user, which will result in subjective answers, and the survey should therefore not include answers as “alot” or “moderate” but rather have time specific answers such as “two hours” or “five hours” to negate the subjective influence.

One way to solve the problems above can be to create a mobile application that logs the number of calls and their duration plus the number of texts and their sizees, and then sends the data to whoever makes the survey. This would make the data more accurate, but the problem with this method is the violation of the respondents integrity which should be overlooked before applying this kind of mobile application.

Quantitative methods are good when it comes down to measuring the general behaviour of a large demographic group. Its an effective way to collect data which u later on can analyse and draw different conclusions from, but you must always question the validity of its accuracy.

One effective way to evaluate the validity of data is to make a focus group that examines the data in a qualitative way.

Regarding: Physical activity, stress, and self-reported upper respiratory tract infection, and the benefits, limitations and contemplations of quantitative and qualitative methods.

The benefits of using a quantitative method is that the data collected can represent the demographic population which is surveyed with a fairly accurate conclusion. You will also acquire different significant data which you can use to contemplate relationships and correlations between different data categories.

Qualitative methods are rather used when it comes to acquire specific knowledge of a specific area, and when contemplating a specialist or specific persons on the subject who can give you specific information. The problem with qualitative methods is that it does not provide the information that quantitative method does, which is the amount of data acquired to draw an overall conclusions that may represent a large demographic group.

another difference between the two is that quantitative methods provides the information to draw your own conclusion, where a qualitative method presents an answer that may or may not be subjective. I believe that a surveyor should use both methods to an extent, they contemplate each other since one method provides the data which the other does not.

This study was a good example of the use and application of a quantitative method, even though the subject itself did not relate to a subject in media technology as much as it did on epidemiology, it still had a relatively large pool of respondents to illustrate the usage and effectiveness of quantitative methods.

Arozin - Critical media studies, reflection

After this weeks lecture and seminar, I came to the conclusion that I had interpreted the assigned texts pretty good. but one thing that I had a hard time getting a grip of, was the term nominalism. But after the seminar, where we discussed it, I realized that I knew it’s meaning all along.

Nominalism only preserves what we see, and doesn't question that which is observed is a pretty harsh way of looking at something. I think that nominalism in it self is a bit useless, but when paired with other methods can be quite effective,especially when u start to questions something which you look upon.

Another thing we discussed during the seminar was the meaning and use of culture and if it have any revolutionary potentials. My group came to the conclusion that there are two different kinds of culture.

Firstly, we have aesthetic culture which is purely subjective. Culture such as music, arts, film lies within its boundaries, and have one thing in common, that someone else have created it, created its aura and meaning, and leaves very little room for the human mind to expand and build her own conclusions and define what she are observing.

Secondly we have what our group called societal culture, which is what outsiders define as our culture. It can be our political standings, our food culture, our educational system, everything and anything that define us as a community and society. The difference between aesthetical culture and societal culture as we saw it was that aesthetical culture were created for our consumption and to please the crowd, where societal culture were defined by others based on our actions, society and in some ways also our aesthetic culture.

I think culture have a revolutionary potential, both directly and indirectly, for example if you take a look on the James Bond and Indiana Jones movies from the sixties to the eighties, the villains were always the Soviets or the Nazis which, at the time, were enemies if the Americans, and therefore perceived as bad guys. Today the Nazis and Soviets equivalents are mainly terrorists from different part of the world, which are defined as the enemies of modern times.

This is an indirect way for the producers of culture and aesthetics to deliver an underlying message of the truth, or at least the truth as they see it.

Another thing I had a hard time with was understanding the difference between political aesthetics and aesthetic politics, but we came to a conclusion during the seminar. Political aesthetics were the usage of aesthetics and culture to show the society how it would look like. We compared to fascism and today's North Korea.

And why are this an important view on todays media? why should we as students and future Media engineers even bother to understand this?

Information is power, and with great power comes great responsibilities, and to create the future we have to know our past to avoid traps and dangers. We always have to criticize media and the usage of it, since it’s todays media that molds the perception and opinion of our society which is defined by others.

We also have to know the power that lies within the usage and creation of media and culture, to be able to detect dangers and threats when they appear.

Arozin - Research and theory

1. Research journal

I read the chapter Social media, Network Heterogeneity and Opinion Polarization from the journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916 which have an impact factor of 2.011.

the chapter tries to define if social media facilitate or attenuate polarization on the political scene, to investigate if people who get exposed to a more diverse media communication will pose significant ramifications to the future of democracy. Another goal was to examine if man could expand her daily network beyond the boundaries the physical relationships if their friends and family, since social media gives her the opportunity to connect and maintain a larger network with less investment-

One hypothesis was that new media will enable individuals to encounter more diverse views and opinions, and tried to do so through two steps. By shifting the focus from offline networks to social media networks. and secondly they attempted to find out if there are any links between network heterogeneity, social media and opinion polarization.

2. Research paper

As for a research paper I chose A very popular blog: The internet and the possibilities of publicity by Brenton J.Malin which has been published in the journal New Media & Society (impact factor of 2.052) by Steve Jones.

the research paper aims to explain the difference between traditional broadcast versus modern media, due to the evolution of the internet and a digitized market. The author also enlighten us with the question of publicity on the internet, and how to mold, understand and control it.

The author collected empirical data by analyzing statistics collected over the years, and also used a method of qualitative interviews with several big names in the media industry. The data confirmed that todays broadcasting networks and media companies do not hold the same power as they did several years ago due to the possibility of a new form of intelligence. the collective intelligence, which is formed through communities with common interests on the internet.

The openness and convenient use of the internet have created a change in the public sphere with increased democratic and radical possibilities.

3. Briefly explain to a first year university student what theory is, and what theory is not.

After reading the text by Sutton, R. I. & Staw, B. M. (1995) I came to the conclusion that we have to distinguish three terms to define what theory is and is not.

Theory: Emphasizes the behaviour of causal relationships and thereby identifying what happens before and after an event. A theory explains why  empirical data were observed or are expected to be observed

Empirical data: describes which empirical patterns were observed.

Hypotheses: Should explain what  is expected to occur before observing empirical data and shall not contain logical  arguments about why empirical data are expected to be correct.

Theories shall have a logical explanation to why some results from empirical data occurred or are anticipated, and empirical data can prove useful when constructing a theory, but should not be a interpreted as a theory themselves. Theory is crafted around data and a theory should also explain why certain variables or constructors are connected, otherwise it will become a weak theory which are often rejected due to lack of precision on either of the fields. An indicator of a strong theory is that it has the ability to discern conditions and possibilities of the hypothesis to be correct.

My conclusion is that these three have a general connection to each other, that they are near ineffective when alone, but strong when used together. the one can’t live without the other.

4. Describe the major theory or theories that are used in your selected paper. Which theory type (see Table 2 in Gregor) can the theory or theories be characterized as?

The theory used in the research paper is an explanation theory since the majority of the paper explains causal relationships of the changes in modern times media. She also explains the weight and impact of openness in todays media, that every internet user acts both as a producer and a consumer and therefore have a bigger responsibility. She also predicts that misusing the power of internet will cause a series of publicity problems which will have an impact on the modern democratic communication.

“the more open a channel of communication, the more diverse opinions it can include, but the less clearly it can focus attention on any particular topic”

5. Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?

The benefit of this theory is that it presents a strong case with different angles of approach based on numerous and different occasions throughout history, were you later on can predict the outcome of radical changes in different areas of the segment at hand. There are not any specific predictions in this paper that makes the theory an explanation and prediction (EP) theory, even though it has the possibility to become one.

Arozin - Theory of knowledge, reflection

After this weeks lecture and seminar, I came to the conclusion that I had interpreted Kant and Plato correctly in some aspects, and incorrectly in some other aspects. For example, i interpreted Socrates theory that man hear through the eyes and ears, and not with the eyes and ears, mostly correctly. Johan Eriksson explained that the human soul use our senses to perceive information and process knowledge, and that our senses are mere tools to gather information which we then categorize, summarize and draw a conclusion from with our brain.

And the argument that perception without conception is blind enlightened me, in some ways it’s obvious that man process information differently, due to subjective feelings that differs from man to man. You perceive something and analyze it based on what you already know, but take for example that you stumble over something you have never seen before. In this peculiar case you have nothing to base your view and opinion on, and therefore you are blind in you perception, and can not make a correct assumption of the meaning of the perceived object.

They argue that pure reason and the definition of an object's existence and meaning is defined on the faculties of knowledge. These faculties gave me another perspective on the cognition that man posses, and I assume that I had interpreted Kant’s theory correctly, that mans cognition doesn’t conform to the object she contemplates, but rather that the object conform to our cognition (also known as Kant's Copernican Revolution)

And especially after the weeks seminar I think i have a vivid definition of knowledge. I define knowledge as based on the same theory as Kant's Copernican Revolution, to contemplate the faculties of knowledge, that the faculties are mere guideline which man can use to define the use and meaning of an object or a skillset based on the twelve categories. And in my opinion the definition of knowledge is the use of these faculties to define an object. I would also define knowledge as “to know”, to know something about something is to have knowledge about something. I won't admit that this is a correct definition, since after reading Theaetetus and listening to johan Eriksson gave me the impression that the definition is way more complex than I can possibly imagine.

I also defined this on the theory that time and space can exist without an object, but an object can’t exist without time and space and thereby objects, their existence and meaning may be a product of space and time, and then also dependent on space and time.

The problem with defining knowledge is the different experiences that influences mans way of thinking and processing information, which makes non evidence based knowledge being a slave to the subjective judge. maybe the definition of knowledge is that all knowledge is subjective?

The thing I found peculiar was that Plato argumented against that times definition of empiricism. When I read Platos dialogue between Socrates and Theaetetus, i interpreted it as that they both concurred that what we today call empiricism was the correct way to define the truth in knowledge, that evidence based theories and such were the credible way to go. And when it came up during the lecture that Socrates argued against empiricism, made me question my own interpretation of Theaetetus. had I understood the underlying meaning of the text correctly? Or had I just interpreted it differently?

Arozin - Critical media studies

What is "Enlightenment"?

I interpreted enlightenment as the adoption of rational thinking and science to overcome the fear and doubt. and to give man the power of understanding and a more advanced way of thinking. And enlightenment is the only way to modern science and the concept of demythologization. I interpreted enlightenment as the opposite and mortal enemy of myth, and vice versa.

What is "dialectic"?

Dialectic is a way of solving disagreement through rational discussion. It’s a way of interpret something from its features which hands the decision over to the truth. It’s a state of mind which capitalize on rational thinking rather then basing conclusions on myths and stories.

What is "nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

I think nominalism is a way of thinking to stand up against the world of myth. Nominalism encourages man to believe in the real world, and not a fantasy world produced by myth.

What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

I interpret it as a state of mind, that you base your life and actions upon a myth or a legend, that you draw your conclusions based on a fantasy rather than rational thinking. Myth is what enlightenment is not, and myth tries to describe the world through fiction, stories and superstition, and enlightenment is based on the rational use of knowledge, science and empirical evidence.

According to Adorna and Horkheimer, myth is a product of enlightenment.

In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

I define the concept of superstructure and substructure as different ways that culture and the production of culture evolves and changes.

In a Marxist perspective the substructure is what defines a society which includes the production of the bourgeoisie, and superstructure is the ideas, culture, science and inventions which is built upon the means of production. A Marxist would say that an economic substructure can change and define the superstructure of culture. I interpret that as that the economic changes in the world will set the standards of cultural improvement. It is important to analyze this since in a  marxist way a well working superstructure depends on a  well working substructure, which in my oppinion todays cultural bussiness is based upon.

Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?3 9 17 22

I interpret the texts as Benjamin didnt think that the improvement of specifik culture changes had as big of an impact as society would think. But I understand him as that he still thought that culture is one of mans greatest revolutionary potentials abd greatest powers when she wanted to change the world. He made an example of the concept “a picture says more then a  thousand words” and especially the cultural art of film and movies as the new artform, which easily could describe the problems of the world, and could capture the visual emotions of an actor, which combined with a great manuscript, camera angles and effects, really touched and influence the soul and feelings of the perceivers, and thereby possessed the power to revolutinate the world.

Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).

I interpret this as the product of great changes in history that change the overall way man perceive things. An example of historically determined perception is the fall of the roman empire in the late fifth century, which changed the art industry from an antique influence into early medieval.

Another way history have changed the perception of something is the approach to war. throughout the antique, medieval and renaissance the waging of war was something of honour and tradition, and in my oppinion this changed during the world war century. and I think this is due to the changes in culture and communications media, suddenly people at home and in other countries saw what was going on, and what horrific acts of brutality and inhumanity that occured during this period of time. And frankly, the waging of war today is seen as a last way of resort, and is mostly avoided by the creation of organizations as the United nations. Man has changed her perspective of war, due to the improvements in culture, communications media and later experiences.

What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

An aura can be defined in many different ways, basically it is something an object or a person radiates, and mainly it’s a kind of a feeling. In the text they define the natural aura as the unique phenomena of distance, as if you see a house in the distance you you feel the aura of the house, you draw conclusions from the house and sorroundings, and you can almost say that it’s not the objects themselves that influence man, but it’s the objects aura. The aura of art objects is more of a subjective matter. man perceive the feeling of an object based on earlier experiences, as the example with the statue of Venus in the text. The ancient Greeks saw it as a sign of reverence and respect, but the medieval clerics saw an ominous symbol of heracy. but both of the perceivers had one thing in common, the feeling and interpretation of the objects aura.

Arozin - Theory of knowledge

The definition of knowledge, is addressed in Plato's text Theaetetus, where the greek philosopher Socrates discuss the definition of knowledge. The line of argument is that knowledge is perception, what information man can process through her senses, and also who is the judge in the perspective of right and wrong when it comes to knowledge. Socrates argues that we do not see and hear “with” the eyes and ears, but “through” the eyes and the ears. Practically, the definitions are almost the same, but the later describes the eyes and ears as means which man can process information, and whereas, acquire knowledge. Plato where one of the first that tried to solve the definition of knowledge, as we all know, we can't see what is going on in front of us, when we close our eyes. even if we know what was going on there a couple of seconds ago, it can all have been changed, and since we don't perceive any information through our senses, the theory that knowledge is perception is thereby correct.

In Kant’s text Critique of Pure Reason the the philosopher argues and discuss the meaning of cognition, and how human beings interpret with objects, both physical and imaginary. Kant argues around the concept that it´s mans individual cognition that conform to the object she contemplates, which restrains the individual imagination and ability to think outside the box. Kant tells us to look at it from another angle, that maybe its the objects that conform to our cognition.

In my opinion, this way of thinking expands the individuals imagination, and mainly wants us to see through the problem, and look outside the box. It also challenges the concept that an object is what it is defined to be, that an object can be so much more that we see in the beginning. Kant wants individuals to challenge the standards of objects from our usual way of perspective, and he wants us to (metaphorical speaking) twist and turn objects, and find other meanings to their existence than already is defined by society.

Plato also discussed the aspect of truth in knowledge, which I found most interesting, since it also is discussed by Kant. An example is that humans perceive light and thereby colour differently then, lets say, animals, or a colour blind person. How can I know what colour something is, if I see on specific colour, and my neighbour another. Which colour is correct? which one of us has the right to be judge of which colour is right. Plato argues against this, since the individual on numerous occasions isn't capable of processing the truth due to lack of skill, cunning and thereby knowledge. He also discuss that the truth about what is right and wrong when it comes to knowledge lies in the eyes of the beholder.

I think that both Plato and Kant are correct in their assumptions, strictly theoretically, but practically our senses interfere with each other, and together they define objects. I can still hear the dog barking in front of me, even if I can't see it, I can still smell the food on my plate, even if I can't see it, and so forth. And in that aspect I think Plato and Kant has small flaws in their theories if applied to reality. Assume that a tree falls in the forest, we all know that it emits a sound while crashing down, but if no one is there to perceive the sound of the crash, does the crashes still emit the sound? this is another way of thinking, which I expected both Plato and Kant to remotely discuss in their theories. We all know, that though the laws of physics, the crash emits sound.

Kant tries to find a solution to this, through his theory that objects conform to mans perception, as I mentioned before, and I concur that people need to have an unlimited imagination and wider perspective of the defined purposes of objects.

Plato's way of thinking is what we today call empiricism, that knowledge is defined by hard facts, experience based evidence, data and what we can perceive. That only observed facts are knowable facts, which emerges in the theory that knowledge is perception. Plato didn't leave anything for chance when it comes to knowledge, and bot Platos and Kant's theories and way of thinking is the foundation of todays modern science.